Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Mundhenk and Itti – Derived from S. Russell and P. Norvig.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Mundhenk and Itti – Derived from S. Russell and P. Norvig."— Presentation transcript:

1 Mundhenk and Itti – Derived from S. Russell and P. Norvig

2 CS 561, Session

3 3

4 Nintendo example. Nintendo says it is Criminal for a programmer to provide emulators to people. My friends dont have a Nintendo 64, but they use software that runs N64 games on their PC, which is written by Reality Man, who is a programmer. Note that this example will use Horn clauses and is polynomial in run time. More complex examples require far more sophisticated solvers. CS 561, Session

5 The knowledge base initially contains: Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x) CS 561, Session

6 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Now we add atomic sentences to the KB sequentially, and call on the forward-chaining procedure: FORWARD-CHAIN(KB, Programmer(Reality Man)) Forward chaining is agnostic with regard to the question you want to ask it. Instead it tries to in essence fill in the KB, and thus answers your query in the process. This is polynomial in part because once we forward-chain a sentence, we cannot unchain it. CS 561, Session

7 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) This new premise unifies with (1) with subst( {x/Reality Man}, Programmer(x) ) but not all the premises of (1) are yet known, so nothing further happens. CS 561, Session

8 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) Continue adding atomic sentences: FORWARD-CHAIN(KB, People(friends)) CS 561, Session

9 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) This also unifies with (1) with subst( {z/friends}, People(z) ) but other premises are still missing. CS 561, Session

10 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Add: FORWARD-CHAIN(KB, Software(U64)) CS 561, Session

11 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) This new premise unifies with (3) but the other premise is not yet known. CS 561, Session

12 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Add: FORWARD-CHAIN(KB, Use(friends, U64)) CS 561, Session

13 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) This premise unifies with (2) but one still lacks. CS 561, Session

14 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Add: FORWARD-CHAIN(Runs(U64, N64 games)) CS 561, Session

15 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Runs(U64, N64 games)(8) This new premise unifies with (2) and (3). CS 561, Session

16 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Runs(U64, N64 games)(8) Premises (6), (7) and (8) satisfy the implications fully. CS 561, Session

17 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x) (2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x) (3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Runs(U64, N64 games)(8) So we can infer the consequents, which are now added to the knowledge base (this is done in two separate steps). CS 561, Session

18 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Runs(U64, N64 games)(8) Provide(Reality Man, friends, U64)(9) Emulator(U64)(10) Addition of these new facts triggers further forward chaining. CS 561, Session

19 Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x)(1) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x)(2) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x)(3) Programmer(Reality Man)(4) People(friends)(5) Software(U64)(6) Use(friends, U64)(7) Runs(U64, N64 games)(8) Provide(Reality Man, friends, U64)(9) Emulator(U64)(10) Criminal(Reality Man)(11) Which results in the final conclusion: Criminal(Reality Man) CS 561, Session

20 Forward Chaining acts like a breadth-first search at the top level, with depth-first sub-searches. Since the search space spans the entire KB, a large KB must be organized in an intelligent manner in order to enable efficient searches in reasonable time. This only works for simple KBs such as those comprised of Horn clauses. More complex KBs require more sophisticated solvers. For instance entailment in 3-CNF is co-NP with satisfiability in 3-CNF which is known to be NP- complete (Stephen Cook, 1971). This problem is famously known as 3-SAT. CS 561, Session

21 The algorithm (available in detail in textbook) : a knowledge base KB a desired conclusion c or question q finds all sentences that are answers to q in KB or proves c if q is directly provable by premises in KB, infer q and remember how q was inferred (building a list of answers). find all implications that have q as a consequent. for each of these implications, find out whether all of its premises are now in the KB, in which case infer the consequent and add it to the KB, remembering how it was inferred. If necessary, attempt to prove the implication also via backward chaining premises that are conjuncts are processed one conjunct at a time Is a form of goal-directed reasoning. CS 561, Session

22 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? C riminal(Reality Man) Possible answers : Steal(x, y) Criminal(x) Kill(x, y) Criminal(x) Grow(x, y) Illegal(y) Criminal(x) HaveSillyName(x) Criminal(x) Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x) CS 561, Session

23 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x)

24 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Steal(x,y)

25 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Steal(x,y) FAIL

26 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Kill(x,y)Steal(x,y) FAIL

27 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Kill(x,y)Steal(x,y) FAIL

28 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Kill(x,y)Steal(x,y) grows(x,y)Illegal(y) FAIL

29 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Kill(x,y)Steal(x,y) grows(x,y)Illegal(y) FAIL

30 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? Backward Chaining is a depth-first search: in any knowledge base of realistic size, many search paths will result in failure. CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Kill(x,y)Steal(x,y) grows(x,y)Illegal(y) FAIL

31 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? We will use the same knowledge as in our forward- chaining version of this example: Programmer(x) Emulator(y) People(z) Provide(x,z,y) Criminal(x) Use(friends, x) Runs(x, N64 games) Provide(Reality Man, friends, x) Software(x) Runs(x, N64 games) Emulator(x) Programmer(Reality Man) People(friends) Software(U64) Use(friends, U64) Runs(U64, N64 games) CS 561, Session

32 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x)

33 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) Programmer(x) Yes, {x/Reality Man}

34 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(Z)Programmer(x) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends}

35 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(Z)Programmer(x) Emulator(y) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends}

36 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(z)Programmer(x) Emulator(y) Software(y) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends} Yes, {y/U64}

37 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(z)Programmer(x) Emulator(y) Software(y) Runs(U64, N64 games) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends} Yes, {y/U64} yes, {}

38 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(z)Programmer(x) Emulator(y) Software(y) Runs(U64, N64 games) Provide (reality man, U64, friends) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends} Yes, {y/U64} yes, {}

39 Question: Has Reality Man done anything criminal? CS 561, Session Criminal(x) People(z)Programmer(x) Emulator(y) Software(y) Runs(U64, N64 games) Provide (reality man, U64, friends) Use(friends, U64) Yes, {x/Reality Man}Yes, {z/friends} Yes, {y/U64} yes, {}

40 Backward Chaining benefits from the fact that it is directed toward proving one statement or answering one question. In a focused, specific knowledge base, this greatly decreases the amount of superfluous work that needs to be done in searches. However, in broad knowledge bases with extensive information and numerous implications, many search paths may be irrelevant to the desired conclusion. Unlike forward chaining, where all possible inferences are made, a strictly backward chaining system makes inferences only when called upon to answer a query. CS 561, Session

41 As explained earlier, Generalized Modus Ponens requires sentences to be in Horn form: atomic, or an implication with a conjunction of atomic sentences as the antecedent and an atom as the consequent. However, some sentences cannot be expressed in Horn form. e.g.: x bored_of_this_lecture (x) Cannot be expressed in Horn form due to presence of negation. CS 561, Session

42 A significant problem since Modus Ponens cannot operate on such a sentence, and thus cannot use it in inference. Knowledge exists but cannot be used. Thus inference using Modus Ponens is incomplete. CS 561, Session

43 However, Kurt Gödel in developed the completeness theorem, which shows that it is possible to find complete inference rules. The theorem states: any sentence entailed by a set of sentences can be proven from that set. => Resolution Algorithm which is a complete inference method. CS 561, Session

44 The completeness theorem says that a sentence can be proved if it is entailed by another set of sentences. This is a big deal, since arbitrarily deeply nested functions combined with universal quantification make a potentially infinite search space. But entailment in first-order logic is only semi- decidable, meaning that if a sentence is not entailed by another set of sentences, it cannot necessarily be proven. CS 561, Session

45 CS 561, Session

46 CS 561, Session

47 KB: (1) father (art, jon) (2) father (bob, kim) (3) father (X, Y) parent (X, Y) Goal:parent (art, jon)? CS 561, Session

48 CS 561, Session ¬parent(art,jon) ¬ father(X, Y) \/ parent(X, Y) \ / ¬ father (art, jon) father (art, jon) \ / []

49 CS 561, Session


Download ppt "Mundhenk and Itti – Derived from S. Russell and P. Norvig."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google